s.l, s.n. both are in Wikipedia.. that was enough for me to decide we would continue to use them and not apply the RDA recommendation.
Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing Associate Professor of Library Science Odum Library, Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0150 Depository 0125 229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862 gfr...@valdosta.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] latin, the dead language In the conversations that many members of this list tend to find as boring and pointless as can be, it has been suggested that abbreviations based on Latin terms are arcane and that most library patrons likely don't understand them. I have mixed feelings about this, ranging from strong agreement that few know what "S.l." or "S.n." mean to dismay that we are supposedly cataloging for library users unfamiliar with "etc.", etc. Today I'm cataloging a book about muscle development for bodybuilders, mostly weightlifters. It has a two-page glossary of Latin terms. Apparently these bodybuilders are better equipped to search our information silos than library users at large are. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
